Conventional v tricycle gear

wrote in news:d1eb3b97-ebb8-48a2-8725-fa1dc2a50044
@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On Jul 8, 9:31*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the
tailwheel
under the engine?

statistics are that the introduction of the nose wheel significantly
reduced accident rates.

I flew nose wheel aircraft in my early years then did a tailwheel
endorsement in a bugger of an aircraft to land, the Auster.
Then I bough a Tailwind through a long convoluted process and have
flown it ever since.

first misconception is that only tailwheel aircraft ground loop. if
you land on the nosewheel you can experience a far far more viscious
ground loop than you'll ever see in a taildragger.

your question on experience levels misses something.
taking a Cessna 150 as the datum point, an Auster is a quantum leap
harder to land and takeoff well. in the air both are superb to fly.
the tailwind is a quantum harder again to fly.
so what is lost in the details is that there arent as equally as
experienced pilots flying both. the taildragger pilot has had to
improve his general level of piloting considerably to appear mediocre
in a taildragger.

I love flying Cessnas, but having made the transition to Austers and
the W8 Tailwind I simply wouldnt want to not fly the taildraggers.
Snicking the daisies in the flare in a taildragger on a grass strip
is
just the greatest satisfaction.

btw keep that mooney of yours on the bitumen or you'll prang it.

(now let me get this right. you are one of the first wave decoys
attacking this newsgroup arent you? )
Stealth Pilot

I've no intention of landing my airplane on anything but hard
surfaces, thanks. My taildragger time has been limited to a few hours
in a real Piper Cub, and that airplane does not do a good job in
satisfying my mission requirements for GA (300 to 700 mile trips for
business). As for your parenthetical remark -- I wonder what
distortions in my posts you might have made to come to that
conclusion?
The several M words and Bertie when diverted are doing a good enough
job diluting the quality of this newsgroup.



Moi? I just poast.


Bertie

In article ,
wrote:

On Jul 7, 11:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

if a nose up profile on the ground is such an advantage
why not just lengthen the front strut

Now that would be messy! You'd just have a wheelbarrow, then.

Trikes are full of compromises. Lengthen the nose strut (or
inflate it more)to get the prop up away from the rocks and guys who

i didnt realize there was still a lot of traffic on unpaved fields

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I still don't see it shortening the landing roll. Can't see the physics that
would make a wheel landing shorter. I'll just have to try it!

Here are the physics:

The trike, to get maximum weight on its mains for braking
traction, has to keep its weight off the nose. We can use full up-
elevator, but the presence of the nosewheel assures us that it will
take some of the weight and that we cannot get the wing's AOA low
enough to stop it lifting. The only advantage we have in the trike is
the elevator's downforce added to the airplane's weight. Electric flas
make it worse, since we can't retract them instantly to dump their
lift.

The taildragger can get its tail way up high. If you sit in the
airplane while its tail is on a jack or some other support so that the
airplane is in level attitude, you will be astounded at how nose-low
it feels. Observe the propeller clearance in this position, too, and
make some allowance for bouncing that might lower the prop closer to
the runway. I used to do this with students who were afraid to raise
the tail to level attitude, and they always amazed at the picture out
the front.
A taildragger with long legs, like a 185, can get its tail even
higher than level. I've seen a shot of a Helio Courier with its tail
up so that the fuselage was pointed downward at 5 or 10 degrees, and
the pilot was braking hard. No lift at all in that scenario, and
manual flaps can be retracted quickly to get even more weight on the
wheels. Most taildraggers will have the main axles 15 degrees ahead of
the airplane's CG, meaning that if you pick up the tail you can raise
it until the airplane is at that 15 degree nose-low attitude and it
will be balanced there. You'd better have lots of skill if you're
going to try this in the rollout. Pilots of another humanitarian
outfit that operated Helios did this all the time, since the Helio's
short-field takeoff capabilities are of no use if you can't get into
that short little strip and get stopped in the first place.

Dan

wrote in
:

On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I still don't see it shortening the landing roll. Can't see the
physics that would make a wheel landing shorter. I'll just have to
try it!

Here are the physics:

The trike, to get maximum weight on its mains for braking
traction, has to keep its weight off the nose. We can use full up-
elevator, but the presence of the nosewheel assures us that it will
take some of the weight and that we cannot get the wing's AOA low
enough to stop it lifting. The only advantage we have in the trike is
the elevator's downforce added to the airplane's weight. Electric flas
make it worse, since we can't retract them instantly to dump their
lift.

The taildragger can get its tail way up high. If you sit in the
airplane while its tail is on a jack or some other support so that the
airplane is in level attitude, you will be astounded at how nose-low
it feels. Observe the propeller clearance in this position, too, and
make some allowance for bouncing that might lower the prop closer to
the runway. I used to do this with students who were afraid to raise
the tail to level attitude, and they always amazed at the picture out
the front.
A taildragger with long legs, like a 185, can get its tail even
higher than level. I've seen a shot of a Helio Courier with its tail
up so that the fuselage was pointed downward at 5 or 10 degrees, and
the pilot was braking hard. No lift at all in that scenario, and
manual flaps can be retracted quickly to get even more weight on the
wheels. Most taildraggers will have the main axles 15 degrees ahead of
the airplane's CG, meaning that if you pick up the tail you can raise
it until the airplane is at that 15 degree nose-low attitude and it
will be balanced there. You'd better have lots of skill if you're
going to try this in the rollout. Pilots of another humanitarian
outfit that operated Helios did this all the time, since the Helio's
short-field takeoff capabilities are of no use if you can't get into
that short little strip and get stopped in the first place.


Oh, I can do it, but I don't see it giving you any more braking. Quite
the contrary. A given braking force will apply a rotational force around
the airplane's gear. In the three point attitude, you've got more of the
airpane sitting behind the gear, so more braking should be available.
Also, if you touch down in the same spot three point as opposed to doing
a wheel landing, you should have touched down with less airspeed.
Therefore less energy to kill.
For the sake of argument, let's say that you touched down at the same
speed, though, and that you are now tail high. It would want to be very
high indeed to contribute the same amount of aerodynamic drag as the
three point attitude. OK, your Cf is a bit better because of the extra
weight on the wheels, but since the limiting factor is nosing the
airplane over as opposed to achieving max Cf that's irrelevant.


Bertie

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:54:50 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

wrote in
:

On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I still don't see it shortening the landing roll. Can't see the
physics that would make a wheel landing shorter. I'll just have to
try it!

Here are the physics:

The trike, to get maximum weight on its mains for braking
traction, has to keep its weight off the nose. We can use full up-
elevator, but the presence of the nosewheel assures us that it will
take some of the weight and that we cannot get the wing's AOA low
enough to stop it lifting. The only advantage we have in the trike is
the elevator's downforce added to the airplane's weight. Electric flas
make it worse, since we can't retract them instantly to dump their
lift.

The taildragger can get its tail way up high. If you sit in the
airplane while its tail is on a jack or some other support so that the
airplane is in level attitude, you will be astounded at how nose-low
it feels. Observe the propeller clearance in this position, too, and
make some allowance for bouncing that might lower the prop closer to
the runway. I used to do this with students who were afraid to raise
the tail to level attitude, and they always amazed at the picture out
the front.
A taildragger with long legs, like a 185, can get its tail even
higher than level. I've seen a shot of a Helio Courier with its tail
up so that the fuselage was pointed downward at 5 or 10 degrees, and
the pilot was braking hard. No lift at all in that scenario, and
manual flaps can be retracted quickly to get even more weight on the
wheels. Most taildraggers will have the main axles 15 degrees ahead of
the airplane's CG, meaning that if you pick up the tail you can raise
it until the airplane is at that 15 degree nose-low attitude and it
will be balanced there. You'd better have lots of skill if you're
going to try this in the rollout. Pilots of another humanitarian
outfit that operated Helios did this all the time, since the Helio's
short-field takeoff capabilities are of no use if you can't get into
that short little strip and get stopped in the first place.


Oh, I can do it, but I don't see it giving you any more braking. Quite
the contrary. A given braking force will apply a rotational force around
the airplane's gear. In the three point attitude, you've got more of the
airpane sitting behind the gear, so more braking should be available.
Also, if you touch down in the same spot three point as opposed to doing
a wheel landing, you should have touched down with less airspeed.
Therefore less energy to kill.
For the sake of argument, let's say that you touched down at the same
speed, though, and that you are now tail high. It would want to be very
high indeed to contribute the same amount of aerodynamic drag as the
three point attitude. OK, your Cf is a bit better because of the extra
weight on the wheels, but since the limiting factor is nosing the
airplane over as opposed to achieving max Cf that's irrelevant.


Bertie

the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.

I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.

Stealth Pilot

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:05:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

wrote in news:d1eb3b97-ebb8-48a2-8725-fa1dc2a50044
:

On Jul 8, 9:31*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the
tailwheel
under the engine?

statistics are that the introduction of the nose wheel significantly
reduced accident rates.

I flew nose wheel aircraft in my early years then did a tailwheel
endorsement in a bugger of an aircraft to land, the Auster.
Then I bough a Tailwind through a long convoluted process and have
flown it ever since.

first misconception is that only tailwheel aircraft ground loop. if
you land on the nosewheel you can experience a far far more viscious
ground loop than you'll ever see in a taildragger.

your question on experience levels misses something.
taking a Cessna 150 as the datum point, an Auster is a quantum leap
harder to land and takeoff well. in the air both are superb to fly.
the tailwind is a quantum harder again to fly.
so what is lost in the details is that there arent as equally as
experienced pilots flying both. the taildragger pilot has had to
improve his general level of piloting considerably to appear mediocre
in a taildragger.

I love flying Cessnas, but having made the transition to Austers and
the W8 Tailwind I simply wouldnt want to not fly the taildraggers.
Snicking the daisies in the flare in a taildragger on a grass strip
is
just the greatest satisfaction.

btw keep that mooney of yours on the bitumen or you'll prang it.

(now let me get this right. you are one of the first wave decoys
attacking this newsgroup arent you? )
Stealth Pilot

I've no intention of landing my airplane on anything but hard
surfaces, thanks. My taildragger time has been limited to a few hours
in a real Piper Cub, and that airplane does not do a good job in
satisfying my mission requirements for GA (300 to 700 mile trips for
business). As for your parenthetical remark -- I wonder what
distortions in my posts you might have made to come to that
conclusion?

a bit of chaff sorting. you pass :-)

The several M words and Bertie when diverted are doing a good enough
job diluting the quality of this newsgroup.



Moi? I just poast.


Bertie

the quality of the posts usually inversely proportional to the length
before the sig line. yours are often the shortest.

(it never occurred to me that you were not a white guy)
Stealth Pilot

On Jul 10, 9:06*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:54:50 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:



wrote in
:

On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I still don't see it shortening the landing roll. Can't see the
physics that would make a wheel landing shorter. I'll just have to
try it!

* Here are the physics:

* * The trike, to get maximum weight on its mains for braking
traction, has to keep its weight off the nose. We can use full up-
elevator, but the presence of the nosewheel assures us that it will
take some of the weight and that we cannot get the wing's AOA low
enough to stop it lifting. The only advantage we have in the trike is
the elevator's downforce added to the airplane's weight. Electric flas
make it worse, since we can't retract them instantly to dump their
lift.

* * * The taildragger can get its tail way up high. If you sit in the
airplane while its tail is on a jack or some other support so that the
airplane is in level attitude, you will be astounded at how nose-low
it feels. Observe the propeller clearance in this position, too, and
make some allowance for bouncing that might lower the prop closer to
the runway. I used to do this with students who were afraid to raise
the tail to level attitude, and they always amazed at the picture out
the front.
* * *A taildragger with long legs, like a 185, can get its tail even
higher than level. I've seen a shot of a Helio Courier with its tail
up so that the fuselage was pointed downward at 5 or 10 degrees, and
the pilot was braking hard. No lift at all in that scenario, and
manual flaps can be retracted quickly to get even more weight on the
wheels. Most taildraggers will have the main axles 15 degrees ahead of
the airplane's CG, meaning that if you pick up the tail you can raise
it until the airplane is at that 15 degree nose-low attitude and it
will be balanced there. You'd better have lots of skill if you're
going to try this in the rollout. Pilots of another humanitarian
outfit that operated Helios did this all the time, since the Helio's
short-field takeoff capabilities are of no use if you can't get into
that short little strip and get stopped in the first place.

Oh, I can do it, but I don't see it giving you any more braking. Quite
the contrary. A given braking force will apply a rotational force around
the airplane's gear. In the three point attitude, you've got more of the
airpane sitting behind the gear, so more braking should be available.
Also, if you touch down in the same spot three point as opposed to doing
a wheel landing, you should have touched down with less airspeed.
Therefore less energy to kill.
For the sake of argument, let's say that you touched down at the same
speed, though, and that you are now tail high. It would want to be very
high indeed to contribute the same amount of aerodynamic drag as the
three point attitude. OK, your Cf is a bit better because of the extra
weight on the wheels, but since the limiting factor is nosing the
airplane over as opposed to achieving max Cf that's irrelevant.

Bertie

the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.

I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.

Stealth Pilot

In something like a Mooney, full flaps into the flare, flying the
airplane until it's out of airspeed, then sucking in the flaps just at
touchdown does shorten the landing roll -- weight gets onto the mains
a lot sooner, so frictional braking works when there's not airspeed
left to keep the nosewheel high. On the other hand, I'd not be
surprised to learn the difference is stopping distance from touchdown,
keeping the flaps extended vs retracting them, is less than 30 feet.
My goal is to touch down close enough to where I want to exit the
active so that it doesn't take much engine, or much braking, to make
the turn.


It drives me nuts to see the 172 I'm following touch down on the
numbers when the turn off is 3000 feet down the runway

On Jul 9, 9:26 pm, wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I still don't see it shortening the landing roll. Can't see the physics that
would make a wheel landing shorter. I'll just have to try it!

Here are the physics:

The trike, to get maximum weight on its mains for braking
traction, has to keep its weight off the nose. We can use full up-
elevator, but the presence of the nosewheel assures us that it will
take some of the weight and that we cannot get the wing's AOA low
enough to stop it lifting. The only advantage we have in the trike is
the elevator's downforce added to the airplane's weight. Electric flas
make it worse, since we can't retract them instantly to dump their
lift.

The taildragger can get its tail way up high. If you sit in the
airplane while its tail is on a jack or some other support so that the
airplane is in level attitude, you will be astounded at how nose-low
it feels. Observe the propeller clearance in this position, too, and
make some allowance for bouncing that might lower the prop closer to
the runway. I used to do this with students who were afraid to raise
the tail to level attitude, and they always amazed at the picture out
the front.
A taildragger with long legs, like a 185, can get its tail even
higher than level. I've seen a shot of a Helio Courier with its tail
up so that the fuselage was pointed downward at 5 or 10 degrees, and
the pilot was braking hard. No lift at all in that scenario, and
manual flaps can be retracted quickly to get even more weight on the
wheels. Most taildraggers will have the main axles 15 degrees ahead of
the airplane's CG, meaning that if you pick up the tail you can raise
it until the airplane is at that 15 degree nose-low attitude and it
will be balanced there. You'd better have lots of skill if you're
going to try this in the rollout. Pilots of another humanitarian
outfit that operated Helios did this all the time, since the Helio's
short-field takeoff capabilities are of no use if you can't get into
that short little strip and get stopped in the first place.

Dan

You'd better go try a few. It works, believe me.

Dan

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:54:50 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

wrote in
news:801c3098-d23a-4d31-a72c-9b93ad4e5339
@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I still don't see it shortening the landing roll. Can't see the
physics that would make a wheel landing shorter. I'll just have to
try it!

Here are the physics:

The trike, to get maximum weight on its mains for braking
traction, has to keep its weight off the nose. We can use full up-
elevator, but the presence of the nosewheel assures us that it will
take some of the weight and that we cannot get the wing's AOA low
enough to stop it lifting. The only advantage we have in the trike
is
the elevator's downforce added to the airplane's weight. Electric
flas
make it worse, since we can't retract them instantly to dump their
lift.

The taildragger can get its tail way up high. If you sit in
the
airplane while its tail is on a jack or some other support so that
the
airplane is in level attitude, you will be astounded at how nose-low
it feels. Observe the propeller clearance in this position, too, and
make some allowance for bouncing that might lower the prop closer to
the runway. I used to do this with students who were afraid to raise
the tail to level attitude, and they always amazed at the picture
out
the front.
A taildragger with long legs, like a 185, can get its tail even
higher than level. I've seen a shot of a Helio Courier with its tail
up so that the fuselage was pointed downward at 5 or 10 degrees, and
the pilot was braking hard. No lift at all in that scenario, and
manual flaps can be retracted quickly to get even more weight on the
wheels. Most taildraggers will have the main axles 15 degrees ahead
of
the airplane's CG, meaning that if you pick up the tail you can
raise
it until the airplane is at that 15 degree nose-low attitude and it
will be balanced there. You'd better have lots of skill if you're
going to try this in the rollout. Pilots of another humanitarian
outfit that operated Helios did this all the time, since the Helio's
short-field takeoff capabilities are of no use if you can't get into
that short little strip and get stopped in the first place.


Oh, I can do it, but I don't see it giving you any more braking. Quite
the contrary. A given braking force will apply a rotational force
around
the airplane's gear. In the three point attitude, you've got more of
the
airpane sitting behind the gear, so more braking should be available.
Also, if you touch down in the same spot three point as opposed to
doing
a wheel landing, you should have touched down with less airspeed.
Therefore less energy to kill.
For the sake of argument, let's say that you touched down at the same
speed, though, and that you are now tail high. It would want to be
very
high indeed to contribute the same amount of aerodynamic drag as the
three point attitude. OK, your Cf is a bit better because of the extra
weight on the wheels, but since the limiting factor is nosing the
airplane over as opposed to achieving max Cf that's irrelevant.


Bertie

the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.

I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.

Yeah, generally I agree. Depends on the airpalne, probably, but I can't
think of anything that would stop more quickly with the flaps up.
One of the things I found alarming in at least one old private pilot
course that was out there, I think it was the Jeppeson one, was advising
the pilot to push forward on the stick in a trike in order to shorten
the landing distance. The reasining was that it put more weight on the
wheels and allowed harder braking. In my experinece, if you are braking
that hard, the nosewheel is already pretty firmly on the ground and you
have enough braking already! Pushing would only put more weight on the
nosewheel at the expense of weight on the mains...
I've seen a lot of airline pilots do this, even though the Boeing
manuals specifically state to only relax up elevator enough to allow
good enough nosewheel contact in order to allow good steering.

Bertie

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:05:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

wrote in news:d1eb3b97-ebb8-48a2-8725-fa1dc2a50044
:

On Jul 8, 9:31*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and
their
pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in
that
same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record
when
compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the
tailwheel
under the engine?

statistics are that the introduction of the nose wheel
significantly
reduced accident rates.

I flew nose wheel aircraft in my early years then did a tailwheel
endorsement in a bugger of an aircraft to land, the Auster.
Then I bough a Tailwind through a long convoluted process and have
flown it ever since.

first misconception is that only tailwheel aircraft ground loop. if
you land on the nosewheel you can experience a far far more
viscious
ground loop than you'll ever see in a taildragger.

your question on experience levels misses something.
taking a Cessna 150 as the datum point, an Auster is a quantum leap
harder to land and takeoff well. in the air both are superb to fly.
the tailwind is a quantum harder again to fly.
so what is lost in the details is that there arent as equally as
experienced pilots flying both. the taildragger pilot has had to
improve his general level of piloting considerably to appear
mediocre
in a taildragger.

I love flying Cessnas, but having made the transition to Austers
and
the W8 Tailwind I simply wouldnt want to not fly the taildraggers.
Snicking the daisies in the flare in a taildragger on a grass strip
is
just the greatest satisfaction.

btw keep that mooney of yours on the bitumen or you'll prang it.

(now let me get this right. you are one of the first wave decoys
attacking this newsgroup arent you? )
Stealth Pilot

I've no intention of landing my airplane on anything but hard
surfaces, thanks. My taildragger time has been limited to a few
hours
in a real Piper Cub, and that airplane does not do a good job in
satisfying my mission requirements for GA (300 to 700 mile trips for
business). As for your parenthetical remark -- I wonder what
distortions in my posts you might have made to come to that
conclusion?

a bit of chaff sorting. you pass :-)

The several M words and Bertie when diverted are doing a good enough
job diluting the quality of this newsgroup.



Moi? I just poast.


Bertie

the quality of the posts usually inversely proportional to the length
before the sig line. yours are often the shortest.

That's just laziness..

(it never occurred to me that you were not a white guy)


Me neither. I'd better check.

Bertie